I posted a thread last night noting that while there were scores of Obama/Edwards

[shance]

videos up on Google, I could only find ONE of a clipped version of Hillary's victory speech in Ohio.

That was last night and they may have decided to put some others up as well.

As such, I am beginning to see how much more pervasive, the sexist slant is and the hostility towards a woman running and actually being a viable candidate.

What Hillary Clinton's candidacy is reminding me of, is the deeply conditioned sexism and hostility towards women who somehow threaten men by their capabilities and their strength.

Whatever you think of Hillary, what is apparent is how threatened many others are of her power as a woman.

Because there is no true differences between our top three Democratic candidates other than the fact that Hillary Clinton is a W.O.M.A.N.

[JDPriestly]

1. The huge difference among the candidates is that Edwards

does not accept donations from corporate lobbyists. In addition, Edwards was the first to present his health care plan. Edwards opposes nuclear energy (as do I). Edwards connects best with individual voters.

[Fresh_Start]

2. Yes, I think sexism is at play

but Edwards is significantly different than Obama/Clinton centrists.

[babylonsister]

3. She won Ohio?

Time out for an opinion here. She's a woman. OK. Do I have the right to not like this woman without being considered a misogynist? I just do not like her and it has nothing to do with her sex.

Is that allowed?

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. Apparently it isn't. It's not too be believed. If you don't support her, it's

because she's a woman and you're in denial, according to some around here. :eyes:

[babylonsister]

15. Sigh. And there's lots of posts just like this floating around.

Anyone who doesn't bow at Clinton's feet now has a label.

[Elspeth]

4. Thanks, shance. I'm with you on this.

Kucinich is my candidate, and barring him, Edwards. But the rampant misogyny on this board and elsewhere has just been too damned much. As much as I like Edwards' message, I may go to work for Hillary in California just because I'm sick of the crying little boys and girls who underneath it all think women are "less than" "not qualified" simply because of gender.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Bull-fucking-shit. I don't like her because she's a Clinton, and I'm

sick of Clintons. I would gladly support a more-qualified, less-annoying, less-polarizing female candidate.

[Fresh_Start]

8. Actually she's a Rodman

do you have an anti-Rodman bias as well?

[TwilightGardener]

9. What? Do you mean Rodman, like Dennis Rodman, or "Rodham", her maiden name?

I don't like either of the Clintons. The Clintons are a cancer on this country, and they need to go away.

[Fresh_Start]

10. sorry for misremembering her name, I'm always bad with names

but I'm good with voices

[Donnachaidh]

6. Edwards doesn't DO the sexist bullshit

not at all. It's all about the ISSUES.

[HeraldSquare212]

7. I'd take exception to the 'no true difference' statement nt

[Johonny]

11. I simply disagree

I listen to the three give their collective speeches in Iowa and New Hampshire. Hillary is clearly the worst of the three in public speaking. I certainly hear the difference in these three candidates. To me Hillary is the most Gore of the candidates. The progressive that'd advisor's have had her talking too vague and thus ends up sounding exactly like her rethug candidate (all of whom are now using MT mimic keywords). Hillary needs to highlight her actual real progressive credentials, and make clear defining statements about the war, poverty, health care... Make the message real or I simply am going with one of the two better communicators.

[GrahmMan]

12. I think there is an flaw in this post.

Aside from:

"videos up on Google, I could only find ONE of a clipped version of Hillary's victory speech in Ohio."
This one is pretty obvious, at least from Obama, Obama's speech was AMAZING, moving, impassioned, rhythmic, and beautiful.

Hillary's was not, even by here standards (which I set pretty low).

FTR I support neither of them, I am still a Richardson man.

"What Hillary Clinton's candidacy is reminding me of, is the deeply conditioned sexism and hostility towards women who somehow threaten men by their capabilities and their strength."
"Because there is no true differences between our top three Democratic candidates other than the fact that Hillary Clinton is a W.O.M.A.N."

There is one difference I can think of, Obama is a wonderful speaker who inspires and uplifts his audience, inspiring them to reach higher(the same appeal, ironically, that the aged John McCain brings, minus the good speechgiving). Edwards has deep appeal as a southern populist (the same appeal Huckabee is trying to exploit in the non-religious states). Hillary is a candidate with alot of experience and exposure to washington and the corridors of power. She has govt heavyweights behind her, she is also a profoundly boring and unengaging speaker (IMHO, and alot of other Dems in my general vicinity). You cant win elections with policy, people have to really trust you and believe in you.

Also Obama and Edwards support is rooted in young techies, thats why there is so much Ron Paul stuff on the net.

[blondeatlast]

14. If you want to label my dislike for corporate, PNAC, pro-war with Iran voters,

with a piss-poor health plan for all Americans "misogyny," this woman, who marched in support of the ERA and Roe v. Wade right along with her mother, won't stop you.

But I will label your post sexist as hell...

[Emillereid]

16. I am a woman and am in no way sexist. I would love to vote for a woman. But

I don't think I can vote for Hillary. I don't like her stands on the issues (especially Iran) and I don't like her cozy relationship with corporate America. We deserve better. She is running on her time as first lady in her husband's presidency and personally that bothers me. Number one I don't like her taking credit for things Bill did - I can't imagine claiming experience in what my husband does on the basis of our marriage. Furthermore a lot what Bill did was awful - remember Ending welfare ..., Nafta, the telecommunication bill, etc. -- remember how he was going to revisit them and fix them later - yeah, right.

There are dramatic and meaningful differences among the top three candidates - enough to allow me to vote for two, but not the third. The devil is in the details. At first I wanted to vote for Kucinich, but I have switched to Edwards of late. But if I have to vote for Obama to stop Hillary -- I will in a flash. I think that particular woman is dangerous.

In the GE election there is a dynamite woman running BTW - Cynthia McKinney.

[Two Americas]

17. divide and conquer

I believe that sexism, racism and class struggle are all playing a strong role in the primary election campaigns.

Supporters of Clinton can see the sexism, and they are correct.

Obama supporters can see the racism and they are correct.

Edwards supporters can see the apologies for the upper class and the assaults on the poor, and I believe that we are correct.

I would encourage everyone, regardless of which candidate you support, to be alert to this and not engage in tearing down other candidates and their supporters by undermining and attacking fundamental principles of the Democratic party.

Almost all of the attacks on the candidates here are attempts at character assassination.

I do not agree that all of the candidates are more or less the same, except for gender. There are profound differences in the methods and approaches to social problems that each candidate is advocating, there are profound differences in how each candidate prioritizes the issues, and there are profound differences in each candidates view of economics.

But there are things we should all share - support for racial equality and justice; support for gender equality and justice; support for economic equality and justice. Do not throw those away for the sake of advancing your preferred candidate or tearing down the other candidates.